This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996.
To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems.
Please send reports of such problems to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

Pamela J. Turner, a lobbyist for the White House in the Reagan Administration, compares the Senate's confirmation of Presidential appointees to a stage play. ''A thousand things go on backstage that the whole world does not necessarily see,'' she said.

Usually the play has a happy ending: the Senate has voted down only eight Cabinet appointments in 200 years. At times, though, it can be a drama filled with horror for the nominee, full of the sort of damaging accusations now being aimed at John G. Tower, President Bush's choice for Secretary of Defense.

But as Ms. Turner indicated, the confirmation process takes place on many levels. Even when a nominee is approved unanimously, as most are, lawmakers use the process to advance priorities, garner publicity, and score political points. Glimpse of Political Climate

As a result, the confirmation exercise can offer a glimpse of the climate of the capital and of tones and themes that will influence the new Administration. The best current example is the case of Mr. Tower, whose nomination has been stalled in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Before Mr. Bush announced his selection, Washington focused primarily on one question: Would the former Republican Senator from Texas, a leading advocate of increased military spending, be willing to live within budgetary constraints?

But in recent days, there has been little talk of budgets and priorities. Instead, attention has concentrated on Mr. Tower's character, on his drinking and sexual habits, and his business relationships with defense contractors. A political drama has turned into a morality play.

This emphasis on Mr. Tower's personal conduct rather than his policy positions reflects a distinct shift in how the Senate views its role in confirming Presidential appointees. At a time when voters seem particularly sensitive to ethical concerns, the lawmakers are determined to hold nominees to a new standard of behavior -and to protect themselves politically by making sure they cannot be blamed for any lack of vigilance. 'Sensitive to the Image'

''Congress has been beaten up so badly on the whole question of ethics,'' said William Hildenbrand, a former secretary of the Senate who is now a Washington lobbyist. ''It generally is in such disrepute on this kind of thing - taking money, making speeches, playing golf for five days and getting paid for it. So they're very sensitive to the image government has now, and that's what's causing Tower so much trouble. Maybe they're even going overboard in making absolutely sure that they can't be accused of whitewashing anybody.''

The roots of this increased sensitivity to ethical concerns goes back at least to the Reagan Administration, when the Senate approved a number of nominees, then was embarrassed by their activities. The lawmakers, for instance, failed to raise questions that were later asked about the finances of Edwin Meese 3d, Mr. Reagan's Attorney General; and the leadership of the Armed Services Committee has criticized its own scrutiny of Melvin Paisley, a former Defense Department official under investigation in the weapons procurement scandal.

As Linda Peak, a former assistant to the Senate Democratic leadership said, ''Probably what John Tower is going through has a lot to do with what Ed Meese did not go through.''

Tom Korologos, a lobbyist who has advised many Presidential nominees on the confirmation process, called the current controversy over Mr. Tower a ''fandango,'' adding: ''It's the way the legislative branch shows its manhood to the executive branch. The comity is gone. The place has become more snide and bitter.''

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

But Ms. Turner said the Bush Administration brought the problem on itself by highlighting the ethics issue as a way of drawing a contrast with the Reagan White House. ''This Administration is very strong on ethics, and obviously people are going to take them at their word,'' she said.

Besides using the confirmation process to cover their political flanks, lawmakers advance their aims by what Charles Ferris, a Washington lawyer, calls the ''Hickel principle.'' Walter Hickel, a former Governor of Alaska, was something of a ''blank slate'' when he was picked to be Secretary of the Interior by President Richard M. Nixon, recalled Mr. Ferris, who was then a senior aide to the Senate leadership. Since Mr. Hickel was uninformed about many policy questions facing the department, senators used his hearings to ''educate and sensitize'' the nominee about their concerns.

The Hickel principle, in varying degrees, applies to all confirmations. ''Listen to the questions asked at a hearing,'' Ms. Peak said. ''They tell you as much about the senators as about the priorities of the Administration.'' Hearing Two Sides

Sometimes a hearing can resemble a tug-of-war, as senators from different parties try to make their points with a nominee.

When Elizabeth H. Dole, the Secretary of Labor, appeared before the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, told her that any plan for federally subsidized child care should set minimum standards of quality. Senator Dan Coats, an Indiana Republican, immediately shot back that such standards would ''discriminate against mothers'' who choose to stay home with their children. Mrs. Dole smiled at both men and said she would take their views seriously.

Ms. Turner noted that such comments often provide a valuable warning to nominees about areas that lawmakers intend to pursue.

At the same time, Mr. Hildenbrand noted, senators often make such comments to please a certain constituency back home. ''It looks very, very good in California or some place to put out a press release that says, 'today I questioned the new Secretary of Transportation about the problems of our area,' '' he said. Other Audiences

But there are other interested audiences at a confirmation hearing. Every Cabinet secretary has a vast constituency of interest groups, trade associations and consultants who are directly affected by the decisions of the department. On the day of a hearing, the lines form early on Capitol Hill, as representatives of these groups jockey for a seat in the room, and the chance to take the measure of the nominee in person.

''People look for a tone in a Cabinet member,'' said Ms. Turner. ''They want to get the feel of what a person looks and sounds like.''

''This is a town of signal readers,'' she added, ''and everybody is interpreting the signals they feel will impact on their own interests.''

A version of this article appears in print on February 8, 1989, on Page B00007 of the National edition with the headline: WASHINGTON TALK: THE SENATE; In Confirmation Process, Hearings Offer a Stage. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe